4/4/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Eggert inquired if the reference supplied by the engineer was a concern to the Board, and Commissioner Bird commented that the County has had positive experiences in the past with Martin Paving on restoration. COMMISSIONER EGGERT WITHDREW HER MOTION TO AWARD BID TO McGRAND AND SUGGESTED INSTEAD THE BID BE AWARDED TO MARTIN PAVING. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #5047 to Martin Paving in the amount of $1,866,512.06, due` to restoration problems with McGrand & Associates. (See Following Motion) After discussion' -6f several other items, the Board agreed to reconsider Bid #5047 awarded to Martin Paving. Commissioner Adams felt that the matter should be tabled for more information due to the revelation by the County Attorney that Martin Paving has filed suit against the County for $300,000 on the new courthouse building. Commissioner Eggert inquired if this item should be postponed for one week, two weeks, or a time certain, and Commissioner Tippin said that he would be happy to act on the problem right now. He felt that the engineer had given the County a letter of recommendation and, as long as McGrand & Associates has agreed to the terms and the County has emphasized that it is particularly concerned about the restoration aspect of the project, then the County should go with McGrand as the low bidder. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, that the Board award Bid #5047 to McGrand and Associates (instead of Martin Paving) in the amount of $1,800,178.27, as recommended by the engineer. Under discussion, Commissioner Bird felt that, unless you have pretty compelling evidence against the low bidder, the bidding process is damaged when someone other than the low bidder is chosen. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. 900K 94 PaGe 807 APRIL 4, 1995 5 9 L 'A